In this general division of anthropology and hamartiology, there is usually taken up the teachings on the origin of man, the element of man's being, the fall, the doctrine of sin {"hamartiology"), imputed sin, the sin nature, and so on. [Cf. Chaffer, Systematic Theology, op. cit., Vol. II.] In this area, I noted the following items, in various degrees of heresy and/ or error.

Westcott Taught That Men Could Be Divine in Some Way

(John 17:22) Viewed from another point of sight it is the revelation of the divine in man realized in and through Christ.

—-Westcott-—John, op. cit., p. 246

(1 John 2:18)... while the lie of Antichrist was to teach "that man is divine apart from God in Christ."

—-Westcott-—-1-3 John, op. cit., p. 70

The clear teaching of Westcott in both of these places is that either "man is divine" when it's the action of "God in Christ," or else there is a "divine in man." This is pure heresy. The Bible speaks of the believer partaking of the "divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), but this is a far cry from making man in any sense "divine." The use of the word "divine" by Westcott is important as he uses this same word to describe the "divinity" of Christ later. He evidently means that Christ was no more "divine" than man can become, or else that man can become as "divine" as Christ was.

(Hebrews 1:2) The universe may be regarded either in its actual constitution as a whole ... or as an order which exists through time developed in successive stages. There are obvious reasons why the latter mode of representation should be adopted here.

—-Westcott-—-Hebrews, op. cit., p. 8

Here is a denial of the immediate creation by God of the entire universe and a heretical teaching of the "development" of the universe "in successive stages."

Let this be remembered when Westcott deals with Jesus Christ. This is heresy. What confusion is wrought by Westcott in this statement. It demeans the Lord Jesus Christ and His exalted position, and it wrongly exalts sinners saved by God's grace into a level that they do not now merit. One day, we shall be "like Him," but not while we're on this earth.

2.Westcott believed in the heresy that "man" in general
is, by possessing a "spirit," "united to heaven."

(John 3:6) (flesh... spirit) The words describe the characteristic principles of two orders. They are not related to one another as evil and good; but as the two spheres of being with which man is connected. By the "Spirit" our complex nature is united to heaven, by the "flesh" to earth.

—Westcott—John, op. cit, p. 50

Westcott does not say believers are, by their spirit, "united to heaven," but clearly states it is "man" in general by "our complex nature." This heresy takes a wrong view of man's anthropology and his sinful nature, and, in effect, is universal-ism, because if a man is "united to heaven" already, what else need he do to be saved and go to heaven?

(Hebrews 2:8) For man, as he is, still retains the lineaments of the divine image in which he was made. He is still able to pronounce an authoritative moral judgment: he is still able to recognize that which corresponds with the nature of God.

—Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit., p. 60

Through the fall of man, he is totally depraved, and has, in himself, apart from Divine grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and salvation which this brings, none of these things predicated of him by Westcott.

(AGAINWAITEFORGETSABOUTROMANS2:14-15 - Keith Hunt)

(Hebrews 5:7) We can indeed form no clear conception of "immortal," "incorruptible'' flesh; but the phrase represents to us the continuance under new conditions of all that belongs to the perfection of our nature..

—Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit., p. 125

We have no "perfection of our nature," and certainly we are not, outside of our resurrected, glorified bodies, either "immortal" or "incorruptible."

(1 John 3:23) Thus in the three cases the Sonship of Jesus Christ is regarded in relation to God as the Father, to God as God, and to God as perfectly satisfying the divine ideal which man is able to form.

—-Westcott—1-3 John, op. cit., p. 136

Again, "man" in himself is not able to "form" the "divine ideal." This is heresy.

1.Hort spurned the truth of man's psychological make-up
as clearly taught in I Thessalonians 5:23.

(1 Peter 2:11) It is by this time sufficiently recognized , that the modern religious sense of the term "soul," as the highest element in man, is founded on a misunderstanding of the N.T. . . . and it is dangerous to build an absolute psychology on such passages as 1 Thess. v. 23.

—Hort—/ Peter, op. cat., p. 134

Tell me, please, just why it is "DANGEROUS" to build an "absolute psychology" on the clear teachings of First Thessalonians 5:23 to the effect that the Christians in Thessalonica had spirits, souls, and bodies? If it is taught in the Word of God, we can use it to "build" on, regardless of what it is, so long as it is correctly interpreted in accordance with sound hermeneutical principles.

2.Hort confused "soul" with mere "life," thus taking the "soul" as, in reality, part of the material part of man rather than the immaterial.

(1 Peter 1:5) "salvation of souls". . . In these and similar phrases we must beware of importing into "soteria" the modern associations connected with the religious use of the word "soul." The "soul" in the bible is simply the life and "to save a soul" is the opposite of "to kill."...

—Hort—1 Peter, op. cat., pp. 38—39

This is completely false and erroneous and heretical view of the "soul" in the Bible. "He that winneth souls is wise" certainly does not mean, he that "doesn't kill people is wise."

(1 Peter 1:9) (salvation of souls) Here again, as I had occasion to say of v. 5, we have to be on our guard against interpreting the language of Scripture by the sharp limitations of modern usage. Salvation is deliverance from dangers and enemies and above all from death and destruction. The soul is not a particular element or faculty of our nature, but its very life

—Cf. Westcott—of John xii. 25

First Thessalonians 5:23 clearly says that the "soul" as well as the "spirit" and the "body" are "particular elements or faculties of our natures" and that's good enough for me.